spanish-american institute

215 West 43 Street  ●  NYC, NY 10036  ●  212.840.7111  ●  fax: 212.719.5922  ●  www.sai2000.org  ●  info@sai2000.org   http://www.facebook.com/studentclub

Text Box: 2

CEA

Program Development, Planning and Review

 Standing Committee on

Curriculum and Program Length and Structure

 

To:       Members, Standing Standards Committee on Curriculum and Program Length & Structure

~   «FirstNAME» «LastNAME»

Responsible Parties:

From:              Dante V. Ferraro, Program Development, Planning and Review Coordinator

Re:                  Charge to the Standing Committee on Curriculum & Program Length and Structure

Date:               April 29, 2013

cc:       Other Standard Area Committees

            All Faculty and Staff

 

The Standing Committee on Curriculum and Program Length and Structure  is responsible for the following sections of the CEA Program Development, Planning and Review

The Standing Committee will review Institute statements on: 

“Good Practice” Standards:  Note that CEA constantly refers in its Accreditation Standards to “good practice” standards.  These are common understandings in education that need not be stated because they are understood or normed to external standards.

 

The three sections below:  

 

I.  Tasks, Process, Responsible Parties, Timelines, Documentation and Assessments/Measurements

This Plan establishes the following Tasks, Process, Responsible Parties, Timelines, Documentation and Assessment/Measurements for the Standing Committee on Curriculum and Program Length and Structure.  The Standing Committee Members (Responsible Parties) listed above will accomplish the review and revision tasks listed below through a process of collaborative discussion, analysis and review of the listed documents in a series of on-on-one work sessions and full committee meetings according tot he timeline below.

Timeline

Task - Process- Responsible Parties

Status

Documentation /Measurement/Assessment

April 2013

President Ferraro will invite committee members by personal meeting.

Committee designees will accept or decline the assignment orally.

completed

·        Committee Charge Memo

·        TESOL Program Self-Review Instrument

·        School Catalog (vol 28 [before revisions] and vol 29 [after revisions]

·        Non-ESL Syllabi 2012 and 2013 (with revisions)

·        CEA October 2013 Reporting Requirements Letter

·        Standing Committee Agenda

·        Standing Committee Minutes

·        CEA Standards

 

May  2013 

 

First meeting to review assigned standards, review guiding questions, define needed documentation, and develop work plan.

President Ferraro: cause to be printed and distributed copies of sections of the TESOL Self-Review Instrument, catalog and syllabi with proposed revisions in printed and online format.

in process

June 2013

Standing Committee members will hold a

Second meeting to draft preliminary responses to CEA October Reports and Program Development, Planning and Review documents

Send draft responses to Coordinator no later than July 1.   

to be completed

On or before July 30, 2013

Dean Davis will summarize committee draft responses and submit to Dante V. Ferraro , coordinator for final re-write.

to be completed

October 1, 2013

 

President Ferraro will submit required CEA reports

to be completed

December 2013

Standing Committee parties (listed above) will evaluate elements of TESOL Self-review Instrument.  Consider revisions, deletions and additions to Curriculum and Program Length and Structure components of the overall Program Planning, Development and Review strategy.

ongoing

April 2014

This Standing Committee (consisting of the parties listed above) will repeat the Program Planning Development and Review cycle of activities for Curriculum, Program Structure and Length described above.

ongoing

 

 

II.  CEA Standards:  Curriculum and Program Length & Structure and Development, Planning, & Review

The following Standards are to be addressed by this Committee.  Each Standard below is followed by a brief summary, illustration, and/or excerpt from CEA’s Discussion for that Standard and page references for further review in the CEA Standards document.  

 

CEA Standards must reinforce and tie back to each other.  For example, Curriculum Standard 1 and Student Achievement Standards must be aligned with each other.  There is a direct link here and elsewhere to Student Achievement Standards.  While the Student Achievement Standards Committee is responsible for that portion of the Program Development, Planning and Review, the Coordinator and the Chairs who work with or serve on both Committees will help align the work of the two Committees. 

 

Curriculum Standard 1:  The curriculum is consistent with the mission of the program or language institution, appropriate to achieve the organization’s goals and meet assessed student needs, and available in writing [emphasis added]. 

 

CEA Discussion:  “Good practice includes having a written curriculum that has a logical progression from one level to the next . . .   Therefore, programs and institutions must document how the  . . .  student population(s)  . . .  were assessed and established . . . .”  (pp. 9-10)

 

Curriculum Standard 2 :  Course goals, course objectives, and student learning outcomes are written, appropriate for the curriculum, and aligned with each other [emphasis added].

 

CEA Discussion:  “Student learning outcomes, which are descriptions of what the student will know or be able to do with the language as a result of the teaching of course objectives, must be written, observable, measurable, and able to be expressed in terms of academic readiness or practical applications. . . . .   The level of student attainment, which will be measured relative to these objectives and outcomes, form the basis of the program’s quality claims.  (See Student Achievement Standards 2 and 3). [emphasis added throughout].”  (p. 10). 

 

Curriculum Standard  3:  The instructional materials and methodologies are appropriate and contribute to the mastery of course objectives (p. 10). 

 

Length/Structure of Program of Study Standard 1 :  The calendar states the number of terms per year, the number of weeks per term and the number of hours of instruction per week.  The calendar is consistent with and supportive of the program or language institution’s stated mission and goals. . . (p. 37). 

 

Length/Structure of Program of Study Standard 2 :  The program or language institutions’ curricular design clearly indicated the levels of instruction and specifies how students progress through a full program of study

 

CEA Discussion:  “Programs and institutions must provide a clear link between the expected student learning outcomes and their curriculum design in regards to length and structure of courses and levels . . . “  (p. 37). 

 

Program Development, Planning, and Review Standard 1 :   The program or language institution has a plan, in writing, for development of the program . . . including planning, implementation, and evaluation. 

 

Program Development, Planning, and Review Standard 2 :   The program or language institution regularly reviews and revised its program components and has a plan, in writing, to guide the review of curricular elements, student assessment practices, and student services policies and activities.  The plan is systematically implemented.

 

CEA Discussion:  CEA is very specific about the “good practices” that should govern this standards.  For example, they list 10 components that might be considered for a review of assessment activities.  They include but are no limited to placement tools, testing rubrics, and student and faculty surveys.  Please read this discussion on pp. 48-49. 

 

III.  Some Guiding Questions or Prompts for Committee Consideration

The following guiding questions are intended only as prompts for Committee discussion in developing it portion of the Self-Study.  The Committee will likely develop other topics for discussion. 

 

1.       Curriculum Standard 1:  What are the measureable English language learning objectives for each ESL and non-ESL English-Plus course?  Are they appropriately “written” into syllabi and other curriculum documents? 

 

2.      Curriculum Standard 1:  How does the ESL-Plus Course of Study assess students to determine readiness for each course and level? 

 

3.       Curriculum Standard 2:  What are the measureable English language learning student outcomes for each ESL and non-ESL English-Plus course?  To what extent are they “observable” (in other words, how do we know that the outcomes exist and are assessed)?  Have they been appropriately “written” into syllabi and other curriculum documents?  How are they communicated to students in writing?  How have they been and should they be otherwise implemented? 

 

4.       Curriculum Standard 2:  How does the English-Plus Course of Study define the “logical progression” from one course and one level to another? 

 

5.       Curriculum Standards 1-2:  How are the measureable English language learning objectives and student learning outcomes for each ESL and non-ESL English-Plus course aligned to each other and to overall curriculum goals? 

 

6.       Curriculum Standard 3:  Do the instructional materials and methodologies contribute to the mastery of course objectives?  For example, how does each ESL course integrate and assess the teaching of the four language skills at the appropriate level? 

 

7.       Length/Structure of Program of Study Standard 2 :  How long should ESL-Plus students spend in each course before exiting (based on objective criteria)?  Are there policies for repeating a course a certain number of times if they do not meet exit outcomes standards?  (Note that this question ties back to Curriculum Standards 1 and 2 and Student Achievement Standard 2). 

 

8.       Program Development, Planning, and Review Standards 1 and 2 :  Does this year's Program Development, Planning and Review schedule include:

·         Tasks

·         Process

·         Responsible Parties

·         Timelines

·         Documentation and

·         Assessments and Measurements?

 

IV.     Citations from CEA October 2013 Required Reports to be considered by the Standing Committee on Curriculum and Program Length & Structure and Development, Planning, & Review